User talk:Drakein

Welcome!

Hello, Drakein, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helios[edit]

This is its entrance (also mentioned here) in the Greek Wikipedia. It looks like that! It was written between 1945–1960 close to the events of the Greek–German war, and it is often regarded as one of the best Greek encyclopedias ever written (along with the "Great Hellenic Encyclopedia", and "Papyros–Larousse–Britannica). I don't say it is the most modern source in the world, but it devotes hundreds of pages to these events (1939–1949 period), and for this particular period it is indeed an excellent source, a real treasure. Its entries for this period are enough to form a separate volume. You'll not find it online; you will hardly find it in a Greek bookshop, but the most prestigious Greek libraries do have it. I possess it, but I am miles away from my library, and I cannot tell you who is the author of the sections in question. As you can see, only twice I cite it on its own; all the other times, it is combined with other sources to complement them.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its tone sometimes makes it biased, but it is not always the case, and I tried to be very careful when citing it.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic content on Wikipedia[edit]

I have written an article for the book Hail Satan which is a collection of Satanic poetry. A christian user on Wikipedia seems upset and zealous in his efforts to have the article deleted. He has accused the article of vanity, whereas the article reads unbiased. The user in question also argues notability, yet the traffic log for the article since May shows over 1,000 visits. The article has also been accused of lacking sources, yet since this accusation proper sources have been added. The behavioral pattern however is arbitrary meaning when vanity is addressed and leveled - notability is argued, when notability is addressed and leveled - sources are argued. On the surface this seems less to do with an encyclopedic article's pertinence to Satanism and the Occult and rather the concern of christian users on Wikipedia to silence modern representations of Satanism in literature. I want to reach out to you in assuming unbiased concern and ask for your input and participation in the discussion of this article's deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hail_Satan_(book) blackson 08:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response. - Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]